July 26, 2013 · 05:06

Red handed! (Indonesia)

Don’t get caught…

The first rule of corruption is not to get caught. The star of Indonesia’s latest corruption scandal violated that primary rule. According to The Jakarta Globe, superlawyer Hotma Sitompul was caught handing Rp 100 million ($9,700) to a Supreme Court official. The bribe was allegedly in connection to the prosecution of police general Djoko Susilo.

I’m sure there will be a lot of commentary over the next few weeks expressing outrage. Much of that outrage is well deserved. However, it’s also important to take a moment and remember that many – if not most – Indonesian lawyers are not corrupt. I have met many lawyers who are embarrassed by these sorts of corruption scandals. Some of them have even sacrificed professional opportunities in order to avoid the taint of corruption. So, in the midst of outrage, it’s also important to remember those lawyers who fight the small, constant battles everyday to improve the country’s legal system.

UPDATE (7/30/13): Jakarta Globe has posted more details of the scandal, including reactions from the bar association (Peradi).

Comments Off on Red handed! (Indonesia)

Filed under corruption, indonesia, lawyers

July 19, 2013 · 00:38

No booze for you (Indonesia)

No booze for you…

A week ago, the Indonesian Supreme Court struck down a presidential decree that had prevented local governments from banning the sale of alcohol. The Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) filed the initial challenge.

According to The Jakarta Post, FPI, know for its more hardline tactics, had also been involved in raiding nightclubs and stores that sold alcohol. It’s views on alcohol are probably in the minority in Indonesia. However, in the case FPI focused its argument on the fact that the presidential decree hampered local autonomy. In essence, FPI made a federalism argument.

The Supreme Court had had the power to review the constitutionality of administrative regulations even under the Suharto regime, but has rarely exercised it. This latest case is the first major decision in which the court exercised judicial review, and almost certainly the most significant in terms of setting limits on executive power. Is also significantly comes soon after the court received a new chief justice (M. Hatta Ali) and several new justices.

Time will tell if this decision signals a greater willingness to strike down administrative regulations.

Comments Off on No booze for you (Indonesia)

Filed under FPI, indonesia, Supreme Court

July 17, 2013 · 02:39

Recount (Malaysia)

On May 5, 2013, Malaysia’s ruling coalition, the Barisan Nasional, won a resounding victory in Malaysia’s 13th general election. Few were surprised that it captured a majority of Parliament (133 seats vs. 89 for the opposition Pakatan Rakyat). What was surprising was how disproportionate the BN’s seat  share was compared to its popular vote share (60% vs. 47.38%). The opposition alleges not just that gerrymandering has created safe districts for the BN, but also that the BN engaged in vote-rigging and foul play.

Now, the PR has filed a lawsuit against the Elections Commission before the Malaysian High Court. Malaysian judges are not known for their willingness to confront the political elite. Malaysian legal scholar Ratna Rueban Balasubramaniam argues judges ought to view the elections case as an opportunity to enforce the rule of law, not as a improper infringement in political activity.

While the judiciary’s past actions do not hint at judicial activism, this will certainly be the closely watched case in Malaysia for years – at least since the Anwar sodomy trial(s).

Comments Off on Recount (Malaysia)

Filed under Anwar Ibrahim, elections, Malaysia

July 3, 2013 · 11:54

Violating the rule of law to save the rule of law? (Indonesia)

To what extent is it permissible to violate legal principles in order to save the legal system? In the U.S., we’ve often had such debates when it comes to balancing human rights during wartime, from Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War to extradition during the War on Terror.

In Indonesia, legal scholars and activists are now considering whether the government should lower the presumption of innocence in order to facilitate the prosecution of corruption suspects. The Corruption Eradication Commission has used burden shifting to require corruption defendants to prove their innocence.

According to The Jakarta Post, some organizations, such as Indonesian Corruption Watch, have called for expanding the use of burden shifting in corruption trials in order to prosecute more corrupt officials. However, some human rights organizations have criticized the potential erosion of criminal procedural rights.

It’s an important debate and one fundamental to the rule of law. Successful legal systems tend to be able to resolve such debates and balance the needs of society with the long-term protections of the law. During my travels to Indonesia, I have seen other signs of this debate, including enthusiasm for the death penalty against persons convicted of corruption. I even saw bumper stickers advocating for the death penalty (see photo).

As important as it is to punish corruption, this could raise a problem if burden shifting were combined with the death penalty. It would put defendants least able to defend themselves at risk of the ultimate punishment.

Comments Off on Violating the rule of law to save the rule of law? (Indonesia)

Filed under burden of proof, indonesia, rule of law

June 23, 2013 · 18:29

Blaming the victim: (Myanmar/Burma)

Sadly, I’m starting to wonder if I should start a new section called “blame the victim” on Rule by Hukum. This week, two more Muslims have been arrested in connection to the communal riots in Okkan, near Yangon. One of the Muslim women allegedly accidentally bumped into a Buddhist monk, while another woman yelled at the monk for lying about the incident. The incident then caused a riot in which Muslim property was burned.

Of course, what happened to the monk is unfortunate. But the rioting against Muslims has gotten out of hand. Even more worrying has been the ineffective government response. According to The Irrawaddy, “Burma has seen clashes between Buddhists and Muslims in several states this year, but so far only Muslims have been imprisoned.” This year, the government has convicted more than 10 Muslims but no Buddhists.

At Wilson Center event in D.C., Pyithu Hluttaw Speaker Shwe Mann recently reminded the audience that the 2008 Constitution bans religious discrimination. One can only hope the government finds a way to put that sentiment into practice.

Comments Off on Blaming the victim: (Myanmar/Burma)

Filed under Burma, courts, human rights, Myanmar, religion